Democracy for New Mexico

(Updated) 'Elevator 9' Trial Set for 9.6.07: Tried to Get Domenici to Sign Peace Declaration

UPDATE 9.7.07: Six of the defendants were found guilty, two plead guilty and the charges against one were dropped due to being underage. See our later post.
*****************

If you believe in free speech and nonviolent civil disobedience in the cause of peace, you can show your support by attending the federal trial of Father John Dear (above) and the 'Elevator 9' in Albuquerque next week. After a number of delays, the trial is now scheduled for Thursday, September 6, at 9 AM at the federal courthouse at 421 Gold SE, in the top floor courtroom.

Father Dear and eight other peace activists were arrested cited on September 26, 2007 when they attempted to visit the Santa Fe office of NM Sen. Pete Domenici in Santa Fe to get him to sign the Declaration of Peace. They entered an elevator to go up to Domenici's office but some official stopped the elevator with its doors open so they couldn't proceed to speak to their elected representative. The activists ended up spending more than five hours in the elevator reading the names of both the American and Iraqi dead.

The small group was continually monitored by members of the Santa Fe police force, the FBI, a SWAT team, the Federal Marshalls, and Homeland Security as they recited the names. Finally, they were escorted from the scene and issued citations by Homeland Security officials. Since they have refused to pay the fines imposed, they're scheduled to go on trial for the "offense."

For more background on the 'Elevator 9' demonstrators and the charges against them, see Father Dear's account on Common Dreams and our previous post published when the trial was initially scheduled back in January. Also see the website of Pax Christi New Mexico.

The End (and Beginning) of Rove

Watch till the end to see the future "brain of Bush" working at Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President in 1972.

Ah, sweet sorrow, as reported in the Washington Post:

Rove's voice and face betrayed emotion as he then offered his farewell. "I'm grateful to have been a witness to history," he said. "It has been the joy and the honor of a lifetime." Rove added that when he leaves, he will become one of those "ordinary Americans who tell you they are praying for you."

... Rove, 56, who escaped indictment in the CIA leak case, has been under scrutiny by the new Democratic Congress for his role in the firings of U.S. attorneys and in a series of political briefings provided to various agencies across government. Citing executive privilege, he defied a subpoena and refused to show up for a congressional hearing just two weeks ago on the allegedly improper use by White House aides of Republican National Committee e-mail accounts. Fellow Bush advisers have said they believe the congressional probes have been aimed in part at driving Rove out.

But, but, "The White House said Rove's departure was unrelated to the investigations." Right.

Here's what Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy had to say in a statement today:

“Earlier this month, Karl Rove failed to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to testify about the mass firings of United States Attorneys. Despite evidence that he played a central role in these firings, just as he did in the Libby case involving the outing of an undercover CIA agent and improper political briefings at over 20 government agencies, Mr. Rove acted as if he was above the law. That is wrong. Now that he is leaving the White House while under subpoena, I continue to ask what Mr. Rove and others at the White House are so desperate to hide. Mr. Rove’s apparent attempts to manipulate elections and push out prosecutors citing bogus claims of voter fraud shows corruption of federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue its investigation into this serious issue.

“The list of senior White House and Justice Department officials who have resigned during the course of these congressional investigations continues to grow, and today, Mr. Rove added his name to that list. There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelopes Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House.” [emphasis mine]

The plot thickens ....

Rep. Tom Udall to Cosponsor Gonzales Impeachment Resolution

The plot thickens. An AP story reports Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM3) will join other House Dems today in introducing a resolution directing the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether to impeach Alberto Gonzales:

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., who was a prosecutor in Washington state in the late 1970s and 1980s, is the lead sponsor of the measure.

Co-sponsors of the resolution include Democratic Reps. Xavier Becerra of California, Michael Arcuri of New York, Ben Chandler of Kentucky, Dennis Moore of Kansas, Bruce Braley of Iowa and Tom Udall of New Mexico.

NY Times Editorial: Impeach Gonzales

© 2007 Stephen Pitt

Well, it would be a start. Read the editorial: Mr. Gonzales’s Never-Ending Story.

The Contemptuous Alberto Gonzales

Keith Olbermann's report on Gonzales appearance

Last night, I forced myself to sit through most of CSPAN's rebroadcast of AG Alberto Gonzales' smirking, sullen appearance (I won't call it testimony) before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I admit it -- I yelled at the TV set. Again.

Alberto's rude arrogance, his abject refusal to answer legitimate questions and his "I can't recall" refrains were frustrating enough, but his obvious lying and dissembling were executed without even a smidgeon of shame. Publicly. As if daring the Committee members to do something about it. He obviously feels protected by the Bush-Cheney cabal. As long as he continues to provide them cover, he can break any rule, any law, any protocol, for Bush himself has said he won't allow the Justice Department to investigate or prosecute Alberto for anything.

In any other era, the mainstream media would be all over the story of Alberto's deceit, incompetence and refusal to answer questions representing entirely legal constitutional oversight by the Congress. It would be on TV 24/7, like the Clinton stories were back in the days of Special Prosecutor Starr. Citizens would be up in arms, demanding action.

In any other era, of course, the person serving as president would never have appointed a slug like Gonzales and certainly would have forced a resignation if the AG behaved like Gonzales. In the Bush era, however, this is mere business as usual -- incompetence, dishonesty and acting above the law are commonplace, from the highest echelons of the White House on down. It's the modus operadi of the Bush administration: anti-democratic, unconstitutional and venal.

Will the Congress ever reach its limit and make a stand against Gonzales and his partners in crime? At least the language used by Senators yesterday was blunt indeed. Some Senatorial quotes from the SJC hearing, provided by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post:

"The department is dysfunctional. . . . Every week a new issue arises. . . . That is just decimating, Mr. Attorney General. . . . The list goes on and on. . . . Is your department functioning? . . . What credibility is left for you? . . . Do you expect us to believe that? . . . Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable."

And that was just from the top Republican on the committee, Arlen Specter (Pa.). Democrats had to scramble to keep up with the ranking member's contempt.

"I don't trust you," announced Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), who paused, while swearing in the witness, to emphasize "nothing but the truth" -- as if lecturing a child.

"You just constantly change the story, seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught," added Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

"You, sir, are in fact the problem," submitted Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

What are the Senate's options to get at Gonzales? The choices are confusing, to say the least. A special prosecutor? Contempt of Congress or perjury charges? Impeachment of the AG? What's called "inherent contempt," whereby a trial would be held in the Senate and Gonzales would be seized by the Sergeant-at-Arms if convicted? Legal minds are no doubt working overtime to come up with something that can puncture the in-your-face criminality of Bush and company. Let's hope they get somewhere.

If the precedents being set by this bunch are allowed to stand unchallenged, what hope can we possibly have for the survival of our democracy, constitution or civil liberties?

More video:

• Sen. Chuck Schumer vs. Gonzales
• Sen. Arlen Specter vs. Gonzales
• Chair Patrick Leahy's closing statement (and Code Pink chants to resign)
• CSPAN's complete video of the hearing

High School Basketball Players Illegally Searched at NM Regional Tournament

From ACLU-NM:
TO’HAJIILEE, NM—The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed a lawsuit today on behalf of To’hajiilee Community School basketball players and the To’hajiilee School Board of Education, Inc., against three New Mexico State law enforcement officers for their illegal searches during a regional basketball tournament.

“Fortunately, our young clients know that the police cannot just willy-nilly accuse them of a crime and then detain and search them, and they also know that something is very wrong when the police arbitrarily turn their power against Native Americans and no one else,” said Jane Gagne, ACLU of New Mexico co-legal director.

On March 3, 2006, basketball teams from the To’hajiilee Community School, Temple Baptist High School, the Springer High School, and the Des Moines High School competed in a regional basketball tournament hosted by Des Moines High School, in Des Moines, New Mexico. During the tournament the Temple Baptist coach reported to the police that items had been stolen from their locker room.  After items were reported missing, the police searched only the To’hajiilee team members, despite statements from coaches that the search was not necessary, and no indication that any To’hajiilee player had taken the items.  To’hajiilee is a Chapter of the Navajo Nation, and the To’hajiilee Community School is a Native American high school.

The policemen ordered the To’hajiilee team to line up on the basketball court, in front of the spectators, and then ordered the team to go into the locker room, where the team members were confined while the policemen searched their belongings.  Following the search in the locker room, police officials searched the To’hajiilee team bus which had been locked and attended to by the bus driver the entire time the alleged thefts could have occurred.  Police officials neither requested nor received consent to search any of the team members’ belongings or the To’hajiilee team bus, nor did they have any reason to believe that any of the To’hajiilee team members had stolen the items or that they would be on the team bus.  None of the stolen items were found.

“Police officials do not have a blank check to conduct searches at their will,” said Whitney Potter, spokesperson for the ACLU of New Mexico.  “Allowing police to conduct these kinds of searches of students with no consent or probable cause turns our schoolhouses into jailhouses.”

ACLU of New Mexico Staff Attorney George Bach and co-legal directors Jane Gagne and Phil Davis filed the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.

###

Download the complaint: https://aclu-nm.org/PDF/ToHajiilee_Complaint.pdf

The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is to maintain and advance the cause of civil liberties within the state of New Mexico, with particular emphasis on the freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and assemblage, and the right to vote, due process of law and equal protection of law, and to take any legitimate action in the furtherance and defense of such purposes. These objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship. For more information, visit us on the web: www.aclu-nm.org.

American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico
PO BOX 566, Albuquerque, NM 87103
Tel: (505) 266-5915 ext 1003 | Fax: (505) 266-5916
Email: wpotter@aclu-nm.org | Web: https://www.aclu-nm.org

Visit the ACLU of New Mexico's New Blog

To donate to the ACLU of New Mexico securely online, click here.

Today's Must Read: Lady Bird the Liberal

Lest we forget how we got here from there. A Southern, and Liberal, Lady by Sidney Blumenthal.

(above, left to right) Bella Abzug, Rosalynn Carter, Betty Ford, Lady Bird Johnson, Linda Johnson Robb, Maya Angelou, and Coretta Scott King recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the 1977 Houston Women’s Conference. Photo by Jo Freeman.

Last Chance to Tell the FCC to Save the Internet As We Know It

Go to SaveTheInternet.com and tell your story by July 16th -- that's Monday!

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd Agree to First Ever TV Debate on Gay Issues

A live, one hour presidential debate on August 9th in Los Angeles will focus on issues of importance to GLBT Americans and others who believe equality under the law is a central tenant of any real democracy. Sponsored by the LOGO TV network and the Human Rights Campaign, the first of its kind TV forum will be aired on LOGO at 7:00 PM Mountain Time, as well as streamed live at LOGOonline.com. Panelists will include Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge, who will ask the presidential candidates questions on such issues as relationship recognition, marriage equality, workplace fairness, the military, hate crimes and HIV/AIDS. LOGO is broadcast on Channel 163 on Comcast cable in Albuquerque.

According to this story at 365Gay.com, "Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Chris Dodd have confirmed they will participate. Several other Democratic candidates also may join the debate." No word yet on whether Gov. Bill Richardson will appear.

As a side note, Richardson is currently the focus of a story about his use of a negative Hispanic term for gayness during a joke sequence with Don Imus on one of his shows about a year ago. I certainly don't approve of Richardson using the term, but given his generally strong record of being supportive of the GLBT community, expect this story to fade fast. The Governor has issued an apology for using the word. I hope he makes it to the LOGO debate to demonstrate his continuing respect for the issues of the GLBT community.

When In the Course of Human Events ...

Olbermann Special Comment: Bush, Cheney Should Resign
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Countdown
Tuesday 03 July 2007

Text version:

"I didn't vote for him," an American once said, "But he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

That - on this eve of the 4th of July - is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The man who said those 17 words - improbably enough - was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair's-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne's voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president's partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world - but merely that we may function.

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust - a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation's willingness to state "we didn't vote for him, but he's our president, and we hope he does a good job," was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped our President in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected - indeed those who did not believe he had been elected - willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison - at the Constitutional Convention - said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes "advised by" that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish - the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation's citizens - the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of "a permanent Republican majority," as if such a thing - or a permanent Democratic majority - is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people."

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party's headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate - instantaneously - became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting - in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.

Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the "referee" of Prosecutor Fitzgerald's analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush - and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal - the average citizen understands that, Sir.

It's the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one - and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon's mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to "base," but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them - or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them - we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time - and our leaders in Congress, of both parties - must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach - get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone - anyone - about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

[emphasis mine]